It's inhumane, it's still a human. The only way to make sense of using cloned humans for spare parts is if they remove all sense from their brain and only keep the survival instincts for their body to keep on living, nothing else.

and then we mass engineering mindless husks of people that only need to eat and breed to survive and then we have them break out due to an environmental group being like "save the humans!" and they blow up the facility and tons of clones and still intact/haywire cloning equipment creates a massive and growing outbreak of them and suddenly they are eating people and ******* in the street to survive and dear god it's ******* terrifying zombie apocalypse.

^^
He's right. You can't just create a human and then tell him/her that his/her value is inferior. That he/she is just there to sacrifice its life for you.
I think a better solution would be using the genetic information and cloning techniques to create the spare parts themselves instead of spare humans (kinda like the stem cells deal).
The sucject is delicate for the reasons mentioned above.

Well I'm on my bed with my arm crossed under the other so...it fired and the bullet scraped my arm, damaged my bed, hit my dirty laundry, went through the wall and probably stopped when it hit the furnace. Good news is..it completely missed my laptop beside me.

way to many reasons to count, Most common one would be the whole "Can you imagine realising one day that the only reason you where brought into existence, was because someone else was considered great enough for them to create some pale imitation of their greatness?"

another would be that just how worse would it make population growth? with people living longer and longer, and more people giving birth all the time throwing another way to create human live would cause earth to overpopulate horrendously.

Ever read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?

if spare body parts get cloned then can you imagine just how bad it would be if people stopped valuing their own body because parts where replaceable? what if something went wrong with the replacement, or if for some reason replacement organs where no longer available how many would be stuck disabled/Dying because they no longer had to value their own body?

SO many reasons involved in the concept of soldier clones, a few of which could be applied to the aforementioned Frankenstein issues.

People watch too many ******* movies, how the **** is cloning inhumane? It's just like reproducing except without the need for people. It's not like in the ******* movies where it has all your thoughts and dreams and it doesn't start out the same age as you... It grows up and is completely different from whoever was cloned, we can only clone the genes, not personality...

Dogs can smell the difference between identical twins from birth, which suggests that there are innate differences between them that we can't yet measure properly, but this could still account for variations in personalities and the such.

A direct clone may lack these differences and give more accurate clues as to the significance of nature vs. nurture. And considering how often this question comes up it would be worth the effort just to settle the question once and for all.

Note I'm not just talking about cloning Stephen Fry and seeing if the baby grows up awesome, I meant if we could clone someone twice we could carefully manage the environment in which the fetus develops. How certain hormones are shared out between two natural twins is one explanation given for difference, but this variable could be canceled out in an artificial and controlled condition.

Probably not for a while, and for a variety of reasons.
We could clone an army of "perfect specimens" people like George Saint-Pierre, Joe Lauzon, etc. to be soldiers.
We could also clone people at birth and keep them in some sort of stasis in case we ever need organs/blood.
It could even be that we clone people for second chances. Take a sample of DNA at birth, and if that child dies in a car accident, or something you could clone it and have the child again.

I told my barber once about a mechanical heart that has been developed that those equipped with said heart have no pulse as blood flows evenly through the body rather than in spurts. I told her it had already saved 17 lives. She said those people shouldn't be alive, its unhuman.

Saving lives with a mechanical heart is completely different on so many levels to cloning, Not just scientifically but philosophically too. I mean when all's said and done just how far will people take cloning? if livestock is cloned then what consequences could there be if due to them all sharing the same genetic code? it's understandable to be apprehensive about cloning.

Whereas mechanical implants saving or improving lives where people's bodies have failed them is flat out awesome and people calling it "unnatural" should be packed of to live as an Amish.

cloning weith genetic engineering can be good too. say you have a condition that makes it so you're going to need a new heart when you're 30. you could have a clone made without that genetic defect, and either have the parts from the cloned body transplanted into yours, or even possible have your head transplanted onto the clone body, you keep your head but get a whole new body

Imagine the revolutions by clones demanding human rights instead of being butchered up for spares, that mechanical heart would be so much more ideal than a cloned one, especially due to some of the issues discovered so far with cloning.

Can you imagine just how ****** people would get if they lived that long? I don't mean physically ****** but mentally and psychologically. I mean so many people that reach "really old" to us these days are just a shadow of their former selves.

and really think about the people that they would be making live this long, not us everyday out and about people, rich ***** and the people running countries, imagine a Ruthless dictator living to say, 250 years old.

Sure there could be benefits in their somewhere, but generally speaking I think that there could be so much potential for both intentional and unintentional misfortunes?

You can clone just body parts, you know. But in order for us to advance the technologies for cloning body parts, we must first advance cloning whole bodies.

Plus, mechanical body parts can be prone to failure, can be rejected by the body, and can be extremely expensive, many people also prefer the feeling of flesh to synthetic plastic and metal. Clone body parts can be "printed" too.

And ****** ? Dude, I can even fathom the cultural and technological explosion there will be once Artisans, and great minds, the masters of their field, are no longer limited by death, I mean look at artists, history shows that a artists greatest work is closest to when he died because he had a lifetime of experience, what will happen when artists are no longer limited to just 50 years of experience?

And why wouldn't cheaper methods of longevity be developed? There could be fortunes made from this kind of technology.

And this isn't just benefits and misfortunes, Mankind has long since passed the point where our evolution was controlled by nature, this is Mankind deciding where it's evolutionary path will go, and the way is paved with genetic therapy, cloning, and mechanical augmentation.

Honestly if humanity ever gets to that kind of point with genetic modification and cloning then horrible horrible things have already been done in test labs and someone. not to mention that creating a clone with no form of brain would be something possible only after cloning human people has been around a while.
There's also the problem that if you create a body not to have a brain inside it already how could the skull of said cloned body possible contain one, could the doctors have just put someone in a body that does not function properly? or even have just transplanted a brain into something it cannot connect to or work with and therefore just killed them?
there's also the problem that when you think about it just how long can a brain survive and function normally? I mean our race started out banging sticks together in caves and our bodies only needed to last how long? the brain will definitely not last much longer than the first body.

don't get me wrong as I said I can see why people would see it as a good thing but in the end it could really bite people in the arse. especially seeing as trying to perfect mechanical replacements for organs could have far less significant issues, as far as we are aware at least.

I am sorry i have to do this, but i have to get it out. I agree with vincentlaw. I dont wanna be some kinda cyborg. It IS plane wrong, and has nothing to do with development of science. It's playing god. Nature is NOT supossed to be touched, and hell sure aint supossed to be toyed with. My man, i feel what you are trying to tell, but really. If it IS necessary for life saving, then sure, go for it. Otherwise, leave it be.

While I do agree with mechanical hearts, I don't like the idea of no pulse.
Mainly for the reason that with no pulse, how can you check to see if they are dead or not, and isn't blood pressure measured by the pressure while the heart is pushing blood out as when it is pulling it back in?

The veins and arteries flex as blood flows through them - it's my understanding that the beating of a heart is just one part of a larger continuous and complimentary system that is designed to work in a specific way. To remove the beating, the pulse, seems like it would mess with that . How does your brain regulate your heart rate? How does the machine translate beats into an equivalent continuous stream?

Who care about a few animals who are sacrificed for the greater good of mankind ? At the same time we kill, butcher other Humans and millions of animals...this is something people should bother.

And besides that we need this it will bring us to a point where are 2 options mankinds salvation thanks to science or it's damnation and nothing ever should interrupt this, no moral or law **** ..it has to be done till the end where only 2 options will last ..everything or nothing.

How is my view of thinking worthless?
I would understand a few animals being sacrificed for the greater good, but I don't see glowing in the dark as being the greater good.
And you can't really bring up the butchering of the other humans and animals, as no one is supporting the butchering of humans and the animals are for food. Killing animals to try and make one glow in the dark doesn't help much.
But I appreciate you not resorting to insults and explaining your view.

"to further mankinds understanding of the world" No. This isn't the world we were born in, it's an aesthetic one. This isn't natural, at all.. so why push to harming innocent creatures that should be CHERISHED, rather than just be satisfied with what we have in this decaying world? Sure, great job Science, you pulled through and you made a dog glow in the dark; something you knew you could've done, but you wanted to prove it.. now look at the dozens of creatures you harmed in the pointless process.

People like you will always stand in the way of mankinds evolution it's not important if we really needed this but it might and probably will bring mankind a step further, it's needed.

We are nothing without progress, we only have our brain only sciene and that's the only way Mankind will achieve anything. Someday nature won't bother us anymore this whole planet might be our slave and if it come to that ..why the **** not ? We are the only ones here it's all ours and at some point we will kill us and probably everything else with our "science" or everything will be better than any time before.

You talk about harming innocent creatures, yet you use a picture like this? But that's beside the point.

As he said, testing to see if they could alter the genes in such a way to make them glow was furthering their ability to understand genes and learn how to alter them in better ways. While it is sad about the animals that were sacrificed, and I do feel for them, they are long gone and without suffering by the time I type this message. This gene altering ability that scientists are studying could lead to the ability to prevent birth defects before a child is even born. I know you feel for those animals, but don't you feel for the child who is born with Down Syndrome?

I...actually wanna know how long they're going to live if it does that, I mean will it keep trying to pump when and if you die of old age or if you actually wil die of old age, or just live an extended lifeway past that of an average human.

That makes me sad. I don't know why people are so upset about that sort of thing - I've wanted to live long enough to be a cyborg since I found out people are seriously working on neurointegrated prosthetics.

If a dog is born a certain way, it would grow to quickly adapt to the changes.

For example, one might say the nose is an abominating feature to the face because it blocks a decent proportion of our interior view, but our brain has learned to block out our nose so we don't even realize it.

Also, the dog would be absolutely perfect for watching over children, and even better to go hunting with. It'd be so easy differentiating dog from prey.

If people don't understand something, it is automatically 'wrong' or 'unnatural.' If something has been around for ages and they don't understand it, but accept it, then they probably have a really stupid/informed opinion on the subject as though they were right anyway.

Did some looking. These dogs are being used to study how transplanted genes are passed along from generation to generation.

The same technique is also being used on fish to create glowing roadmaps so scientists can see the paths of endocrine disrupters and see how the effect the fishes health (pollutant). Glowing animals are also used so that their cells are more microscope friendly. usually they only glow when exposed to blue or ultraviolet light though.

Why is this wrong, I seriously don't ******* get it, what is wrong with humans playing god? **** , we have been doing it since the dawn of ******* time. We breed disease and infestation resistant crops, we domesticated a countless number of animals, we have been the cause of the extinction of a countless number of animals, we have changed our environment to our suiting, we have set foot on other planets, we have cured diseases with medicine, made artificial limbs for those who lost them, developed extremely advanced technologies, and we have taken two natural processes, that being nuclear fusion and fission, something that can only happen in ******* stars and other weird, hardcore, **** like that, and have have harnessed it to create power plants that will last centuries, and have weaponized it to create the most destructive force in the known universe. So when did we start playing god?

Show me your bioscience degree and then talk about how 'we don't understand the consequences of genetic modification'. Because it's simply not true, we understand a great deal about it, but media stories that they are carcinogenic (Only first gen hybrids that contain the carcinogenic chemicals that help an organism accept a gene) and that they are 'unnatural' sway public opinion. Which is probably killing a lot of people from starvation. Nice one media.

not at all. they could have made a perfectly happy clone dog that DIDN'T glow in the dark, but they cloned the dog and made it glow in the dark just for ***** and giggles. the fact that it is alive and happy is quite a miracle, they could have created some sort of miserable godzilla thing or something

That gene is 'safe'. Scientists understand it to a degree that they don't understand any other gene, have used it sucessfully with a countless number of animals, and is usually used as a gene marker to identify the animal permanently as being a modified or non-natural animal so that nobody would ever be mistaken somehow and allow it to breed.

Baby-steps my friend. We'll have super dogs soon... though hopefully not too soon. There's a lot of people scared of dogs already without them being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

And I agree too. How you raise somebody, be them animal, human, or even A.I. is the most important thing. We all, at some point, needed someone to point the way for us. Those of us that didn't get it... or were shown the wrong direction... are the people who grow up to be broken human beings.

This, by the way, would be a cool idea for a book. A genetically engineered human, the first of her kind, and how she goes about trying to live in a world where quite a lot of people refuse to accept her existence. She could have white hair and skin that glows blue in the dark as a way to demonstrate to people that she's a modified human.

The implications of such a thing, as well as how such a persons daily life would look like, are interesting to think about.

and yes, wiping out genetic disease is also good. but couldn't they have taken a dog with a genetic disease, and modified that one's genes? i'm not saying that gene therapy is bad, i'm not saying cloning is bad. i'm not saying they're bad together.

You seem to be under the impression that scientists do things without a reason.

Right now they're playing it safe and testing techniques as well as studying these animal long-term to see how genetic modification effects an animal in various ways. It is a rather shaky field, in terms of public fear, and so they will not do something without doing their best to thoroughly understand what they're doing first.

Don;'t just stop at dog diseases, when it get's advanced enough, so people like vincentlaw think that it's safe, people will want them to genetically engineer their children, up until some ethics group goes ape **** .

Even better, engineer a cat to have human-level intelligence, or as close as is physically possible. How cool would that ******* be? Just the psychological implications alone are great food for thought.

**** , I'd do it. Genetically engineer my kids to be perfectly healthy? You'd save a ********* long term on medical costs, rofl. Hell... why not throw in a modified healing factor so that my kids could become deadpool, rofl.

Bull. **** . I mean how? How can they GENETICALLY ENGINEER A DOG TO GLOW IN THE DARK?! They can BARELY clone **** now, it can take hundreds of attempts to clone an animal, and you want me to believe you can make it glow in the dark too? Thanks, but i aint buying the **** you're selling South Korea! Also, before you say "LOL! BUT THERES PROOF FAGGOT!" Yeah? Well, theres also "proof" that big foot exists, i aint going for it. Also, YOU CANNOT MAKE A DOG GLOW IN THE DARK YOU ******* MORONS! THE SKIN IS NOT GLOWABLE! Its not like ******* spore! "Oh, i think i'll create an animal with 10 legs that looks like a dog!" NO! It cannot be done! South Korea are just trying to out bull **** the north. Its like "Bitch, you got nukes? Well, we got GLOW IN THE DARK JACK RUSSELLS! Come at us ******* !" Jesus Christ this is just so stupid!

well, we already have glow in the dark animals (fish, pigs) that have been genetically modified, we've been cloning things for years, and we can grow a functioning liver... i think its pretty possible...

Pigs have a light fur i think? And i believe it may have more to do with the muscles glowing or the blood flow, or the bones glowing, because we can clearly see the claws glowing and being a source of light in the first picture

because humanity also have morals. once you officially cloned a person, you believe that you are a god, and begin disregarding life of others because you created one without the need of sexual reproduction, and will do it again if you so please. to copy and modify the genes of your species, making new ones, is just so wrong and weird. its uncanny, and it makes the clone reside in the uncanny valley: Human, but not resembling or not representing it.

Basically what they do is inject pieces of DNA into the dog and combine it with the dogs pre existing DNA. the newly created DNA now hold a recipe for the making of protein that when combined with glucose the protein glows.

Now i could be completely wrong, this is just something that we talked about in biology in my most recent year of school.

A protein code is introduced in whats called a plasmid (yes, plasmid) to the egg cell. From the external environment it becomes part of the DNA. The protein comes from a species of jellyfish called Aequorea victoria, and itself is known as G.F.P, or Green Florescent Protein. They modify it to glow a number of different colors.

Its been some time, but I actually had to do this in college with E. Coli and started to do it with a Pig, but graduated before we finished and next years group took on with my work.

You can read more on the matter of discovery of G.F.P and how it changed our world in a book by Dr. Mark Zimmer called Glowing Genes

he put the apple in the garden making us pick free will for ourselves, always knowing that we would, but giving us the opportunity to live forever as happy idiots in his little garden... if you believe that sort of drivel.

Just because I'm a catholic does not mean I buy into all the beliefs... Kinda narrow minded to think that as soon as the holly water touched my head during baptism I was going to grow up believing everything from an outdated, thousands of years old book...

Fathers side are catholic, mothers side isn't, I was always brought up to believe what I think is right...

Cloning can have its advantages, individual organs for someone in need of a liver/heart transplant for example.

10 commandments wise, no, people should not kill or steal ect, but in all honesty just because its in the 10 commandments isn't going to stop someone who isn't sane enough to realise that, even without then, its still ******* wrong!

We got given a brain and a mind by whoever/whatever brought us into creation, I personally feel it would be a waste to not use such a thing to its full potential.

I inherited this god (so to speak). Personally I don't know what I believe is there or is there not a god (mine or another). I just try to do good, be successful and get on with life and enjoy it.

Listen, i am an atheist, but i know what god is, i know what religious people think gods role is.
So in my original comment, I stated my belief, then i said an opinion which included god.
I stated my belief first so people wouldn't think i was a butthurt christian.

You're on the internet, and you said your saving time?
Dude, you're on the internet, on this piece of **** of a website, you clearly have nothing better to do.
I'd say you put in even more effort in your last two sentences than anything

Congrats on your achievements, shame its the internet and I really don't care.
No need to be upset bby, people mess up always, also, I did not misunderstand a single you said.
Don't forget your capital I's also, you missed one there, grade A student

you keep saying im upset lol.
im fine thanks.
but hey, funnyjunk's demographic is mostly 14 year old summerfags this time of the year.
blocked for being an absolutre waste of time, wont be replying.
dont be mad because my life is better than yours faggot

i kind of agree what he wrote there. imagine you cloned someone and made it so they can glow in the dark, or some other weird and unnatural trait is wreird. imagine you walk down the road, and then you see a man, glowing completely in the dark, and walking towards you. and when we do make a clone, how are we going to treat them? are we going to act like they are just some sort of copy, and treat them as third class citizens? do we accept them as part of our society? or are we the type of monsters who will make clones work for us as slaves or indentured servants, all because they are not original or natural? what most of you guys fail to see is that your making a copy of a sentient being. this copy has its own personality and traits, how will you react if you found out you were just a clone of someone? will this make you less of a citizen or will it make you doubt your existence, knowing that no matter what, you are just a copy.

identical twins are natural clones. something that happened in nature. plus they are both created at the same time, and are treated both as siblings, or in other words, uniquely equal. do you think you can treat one twin as a copy of the other? do that, and you might get lynched. but clones, however, aren't natural, and are made after you are born. you are the original being, unique in every shape and form. a clone is a replica of your physical uniqueness, a being that was created in a lab, something that looks like you, but is not you. it is a copy of you. not a complete copy, since it has its own personality, but a genetic copy of your completely unique dna. you may treat is like a twin, but how does the clone feel, realizing that its just a copy of you, a completely original and unique being, born in this world by natural means, while it is a unnatural experiment of science, a replica of an original being

what does natural mean at this point? I am saying if being genetically identical now is acceptable, then when it became common in the future it wouldn't be hard to adapt to a new kind of person, who is still a real person, just same DNA. Its not like a clone has all your memories and personality or anything. Its just an identical twin that is born much later. We accept test tube babies, and they are "unnatural." It just doesn't seem that big of a jump.

I get it that the clone himself would have a little bit of identity crisis, but cloning isnt that different from regular birth. instead of a sperm attaching to an egg, dna is put into an emptied egg. Basically the same thing. i dont think its as strange or freaky as you seem to think. Sure society would take some time to get used to the idea, but apart from celebrity clones, and assuming you dont make a ton of clones of the same person, who would even know who is a clone and who is "real." (wahtever real means)

well the book is about a clone of a drug lord. the family of the drug lord treated it like garbage, even the servants of the drug lord treated it like something less than a human. the children stayed away from it, seeing it as a disgusting house pet that his "mother" a servant who is the only one to take care of him and love him, keeps. the only people who are actually nice to him other than his mother is his bodyguard, his piano teacher, and a little girl who he grew up with that always accepted him. when the drug lord finally has a heart attack, the clone is told that he must give his heart to the drug lord, since he is the only thing that has the drug lord's DNA in order to have a successful transplant. i would tell you the rest of the book, but i wouldnt want to spoil it

interesting. Well sure if clones can be kept as pets, but it seems much more likely we would just give them full human rights, I mean they are humans. Just seems like we have pretty much dealt with the idea of in vitro fertilization and such. Clones are always going to be younger than you and with enough of a gap it's just like having a child of the same person around.

again I think too many clones of the same person could be an issue, or dictators being replaced by their clones generation after generation, but just having clones around doesnt scare or frighten me. Its just like an identical twin who arrived late to the party.

clones in this book are used as involuntary organ donors. in fact it also shows scientists halting the brain's growth process because they didn't want clone's to gain "human consciousness". the main protagonist, the clone of the drug lord, didn't undergo through this because of the drug lord's request in case he needed a brain transplant. in other countries cloning is illegal because of this and many other inhumane process done during the cloning process.